Re: [OpenFontLibrary] Free/PD VAG Rounded

[Nicolas Mailhot]

Le vendredi 21 novembre 2008 à 12:25 +, Dave Crossland a écrit :
> > All the "VAG Rounded" fonts I can find seem to be commercial.
> 
> MgOpen Modata is a free software one.

Are you sure of it? I didn't find any VAG Rounded/MgOpen Modata
reference in the web.

If that's really the case and Modata is style and metric compatible to
VAG Rounded I could add a fontconfig substitution rule to our package.

Would you know what the fontnames of common commercial derivatives of
VAG Rounded are?

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot


signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée

Re: [OpenFontLibrary] Free/PD VAG Rounded

[Nicolas Mailhot]

Le vendredi 21 novembre 2008 à 18:16 +0600, Christopher Fynn a écrit :
> 
> 

> Is this so?
> 
> All the "VAG Rounded" fonts I can find seem to be commercial.

I'd looked at this too. I fear no one bothered to keep the original
public domain version published, and only commercial derivatives
survived.

It would probably take some serious investigative work to track back the
PD version.

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot


signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée

Re: [OpenFontLibrary] Free/PD VAG Rounded

[Dave Crossland]

2008/11/21 Christopher Fynn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> The Wikipedia article on VAG Rounded says...
>
> "In 1978, the whole Volkswagen and Audi Dealer Organization worldwide was
> re-branded as V.A.G using the distinct V.A.G Rounded (or V.A.G Rundschrift)
> as the font for all signage, and for all headlines in their advertising. The
> V.A.G logo did not use the font. Worldwide availability of the font was a
> problem. To solve the problem, V.A.G Rounded was put in the public domain.
> As Desktop Publishing emerged in the mid 1980's, V.A.G Rounded was included
> in most free font packages and became widely used for that reason."
>
> Is this so?

News to me; I guess that "public domain dedication" applies to the
German copyright on typeface designs, not font sotware.

> All the "VAG Rounded" fonts I can find seem to be commercial.

MgOpen Modata is a free software one.

http://www.ellak.gr/fonts/mgopen/index.en.html

[OpenFontLibrary] Free/PD VAG Rounded

[Christopher Fynn]

The Wikipedia article on VAG Rounded says...

"In 1978, the whole Volkswagen and Audi Dealer Organization worldwide 
was re-branded as V.A.G using the distinct V.A.G Rounded (or V.A.G 
Rundschrift) as the font for all signage, and for all headlines in their 
advertising. The V.A.G logo did not use the font. Worldwide availability 
of the font was a problem. To solve the problem, V.A.G Rounded was put 
in the public domain. As Desktop Publishing emerged in the mid 1980’s, 
V.A.G Rounded was included in most free font packages and became widely 
used for that reason."


Is this so?

All the "VAG Rounded" fonts I can find seem to be commercial.

- Chris

Re: [OpenFontLibrary] Should we (via moderation) accept all Free Software licenses?

[Jon Phillips]

On Sat, 2008-11-15 at 21:38 +0100, Nicolas Spalinger wrote:
> Karl Berry wrote:
> > - we want to reduce licensing proliferation 
> > 
> > I completely agree.  However, I don't see the vote as saying "we will
> > blindly accept any random upload whose license is on license-list.html".
> > Dave said "via moderation".  I took that to mean the moderators will try
> > to convince such an uploader using a random license to use one of the
> > preferred ones.

No moderation. We don't have time. If they don't read the text, and
don't comply then we have to decide if the upload is in compliance, or
violation...if violating, delete that sucka!

> OK. So we would still establish some kind of preferred licenses set? And
> then contact upstream uploaders who want something else to ask them to
> think about the following issues more thoroughly and see if their choice
> of license is still what they really want:
> * use, study, modification, redistribution (the 4 core freedoms)
> * bundling
> * embedding and its interaction with possible strong or weak
> copyleft requirements
> * derivative outlines and artwork status
> * derivative fonts status
> * artistic integrity
> * anti-name collision
> * name protection
> * reputation protection for authors
> * preventing stand-alone reselling within huge collections
> * more descriptive changes of modifications
> * clarity and readability for designers
> * awareness of the software nature of fonts
> * the multiplicity of font source formats, some open and
> human-readable and some opaque/binary
> * good integration with the font design toolkit
> * legal solidity through wide expert and community review
> * metadata integration
> * cultural appropriateness to both the type design and FLOSS communities
> * stable trustworthy working model with a non-profit as the steward
> of the license
> * being reusable and not project and .org-specific
> * allowing linking in a web context
> 
> Dave, Alex, Jon, and others, what do you think?

Well, geez, that is a lot to think about. This is one of the reasons
OCAL went all PD. It gets totally confusing and defeats humans having
too many options.

Sorry, totally silent on this for a bit...I think we should offer PD,
OFLB and the other major way fonts are licensed (possibly)...although, I
see no reason to add anything else unless there is significant demand. I
would argue, finish the redesign, launch and merry xmas...oh, and have a
big sign towards bug tracker. If there is deman, then we can think about
adding it and/or if someone submits a patch.

> So, I do realize I'm biaised (!), but the whole reason for us embarking
> on the OFL design and community review was that in light of these
> important criteria existing models were found inappropriate... I'm
> trying to put myself into the shoes of designers and end-users and I
> think their trust and engagement is linked to a model catering to these
> criteria. I doubt they want to read through and grasp the particular
> working model of 10 or more different licenses to work out how it fits
> their needs now and more importantly what the future will look like
> after they've chosen one.

Totally!

> > The question is, do we want to completely reject an upload which
> > knowingly uses a different (known) free license?  IMHO, no.
> 
> I think I understand your point but I fear we'd be creating lots of
> problems and requirements that would be hard to satisfy for the users of
> the library and for designers wanting to branch/reuse. There's also the
> issue of manpower and time to handle the moderation... IHMO much easier
> with a smaller set of licenses.
> 
> Also I don't think OFLB will host all the libre fonts in the entire
> world either... Always harder to be everything to everyone...

Totally! if we have the best font library and strong rationale, then
hopefully others will consider the licenses we have chosen...and, lets
face it, font licenses don't make better fonts, people do! Plus, after a
2-3 options, the choices become pretty much the same.

> > On the other hand, in the name of license de-proliferation, I would
> > favor rejecting any upload which uses a custom license *not* listed on
> > license-list.html.
> 
> I agree. That would already rule out a number of fonts licenses out there.

totally would cause problems with allowing for combining multiple fonts,
and spread confusion...no good.

Jon

> > - OFL
> > 
> > Ack.
> > 
> > - MIT/X11/Expat (much better than PD)
> > 
> > As long as we're being dogmatic, I think we should recommend Expat and
> > not mention MIT, X11, modified BSD, ISC, etc., etc.  Expat is the only
> > one of that family which has an unambiguous name and meaning.  (Again,
> > that does not actively rejecting a font using mBSD.)
> 
> Good points to consider. Thanks for pointing that out.
> 
> > - GPLv3 + reworked font exception
> > 
> > I see no problem with GPLv2+exceptio